By the time the Iraqi crisis is over, it may already be too late for the Government to stop a political disaster in Europe. The European Union's first constitution will be a done deal, and, from what we have seen of the text so far, it will usher in a new order that overturns the governing basis of British parliamentary democracy for ever.

The EU will no longer be a treaty organisation in which member states agree to lend power to Brussels for certain purposes, on the understanding that they can take it back again. The EU itself will become the fount of power, with its own legal personality, delegating functions back to Britain. Draft Article 9 puts Brussels at the top of the pyramid. "The Constitution will have primacy over the law of Member States," it says.

The new order may also be irreversible. Article 46 stipulates that the terms of secession from the EU must be agreed by two thirds of the member states. In other words, one third can impose intolerable conditions [report, 3 April].

A number of fresh articles trickled out two weeks ago, just as the Iraq conflict was erupting, to create what amounts to an EU interior and justice ministry, known as Eurojust, in charge of a proto-FBI - Europol - with the power to launch raids across the EU [report, 19 March]. An EU attorney-general will be able to prosecute "cross-border crime" in British courts, a catch-all term that gives Brussels wider jurisdiction than the US Justice Department currently enjoys after 200 years of encroachment on state power.

Under a new notion called "shared competence", Brussels takes charge of virtually all areas of national life. Unless the EU chooses to waive its primacy, Westminster will be prohibited from legislating in public health, social policy, transport, justice, agriculture, energy, economic and social cohesion, the environment, internal and external trade, and consumer protection.

The EU will have the power to "co-ordinate the economic policies of the member states" and - showing some chutzpah given what happened over Iraq - "define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy".

This is not exactly what protesters had in mind when they voted no to the euro in Denmark, and no to Nice in Ireland, or when they tore up Gothenburg in the anti-EU riots in 2001. But it was precisely these outbursts of popular dissent that prompted EU leaders, in December 2001, to launch a convention on the future of Europe.

Vowing to end secrecy in EU treaty talks and throw the process open to the "people", they summoned 105 "Founding Fathers" for a year-long brain-storming session in Brussels to redesign Europe's governing machinery. Instead of diplomats, the members were MEPs, as well as MPs and ministers from the EU's 28 current and future states.

The man chosen to shepherd the "people" and enthuse Europe's disenchanted youth was the lordly Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who incarnates the elitism of the 1970s French establishment. It went downhill from there.

The two European Commissioners on his 13-member praesidium, France's Michel Barnier and Portugal's Antonio Vitorino, have used their inside position to hijack the drafting process and push through articles that go far beyond the proposals of the working groups that toiled through the autumn. Much of the constitution is being written by lawyers on loan from the commission. The "people" have become a sick joke.

Tony Blair was slow to see the threat. Downing Street at first dismissed the convention as a talking shop, but woke up when the French, Spanish, German and Italian governments gave it irresistible authority by appointing to it their foreign or deputy prime ministers.

The Government then fell back to a second self-deception, imagining that France and Spain would join Britain in blocking any major assault on national prerogatives. Peter Hain, Downing Street's man on the forum, confidently told reporters that the East Europeans would not give away freedoms so recently wrested from the Soviet Union.

None of this has happened. France has abandoned Britain, and her own historical attachment to a Europe where national capitals always have the whip hand over Brussels. They seem to be accepting federalism as the price of relaunching the broken Franco-German axis. As for the Spanish, they are silent.

So are the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and others, who still have a gun pointed to their head. They know that Jacques Chirac could still try to sabotage their admission next year by calling a referendum in France. Those on the convention will soon become MEPs or Eurocrats themselves, and their salaries will jump by as much as 12 times, which concentrates the mind.

It is almost pitiful to read through the long list of amendments put up by Mr Hain. Britain is alone, supported by just a handful of lonely Euro-sceptics.

The Government still insists that this draft text is nothing more than a wish list. Once the convention wraps up its work in June, EU governments will have their say. They alone will decide what is in the second Treaty of Rome this December. Of course, Britain can veto any text it does not like. But equally, we all know that Labour is not going to destroy a six-year effort to place the Government at the heart of Europe. And there is always the implicit threat that 24 other states could create a new union, leaving Britain in an empty shell.

Mr Blair will win a few face-saving concessions. The meaningless term "federal" will be taken out of Article 1. A watchdog may be created to safeguard "subsidiarity". But in the end he will try to pretend that this monster is more or less what Downing Street wanted all along, even with its legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Only a referendum can stop it now - if the Tories have got the guts to fight for one.

This issue is not at the forefront of everyone's mind at the moment, Ambrose does us a service by trying to make people think about it.

What Blair and the East Europeans need is an "out", a better deal from the United States than the garbage being offered up in Brussels. I suspect President Bush is wise enough not to want this constitution to happen, and will offer such an alternative.

I sincerely hope that many countries will not go along with losing their soveignity, especially Britain, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and the new EU states. It would be like Hitler taking over Europe without firing a shot. This may explain, as I have said all along, the Franco/German collaboration. "Old Europe" needs the new States more than they need them. All the business investment will go there, because of lower labor costs. "Old Europe" just wants to milk them through Social Taxation, since their economies are bankrupt and won't recover. Enter the U.S. with a new NATO plan excluding "old Europe" and inclusion in NAFTA. At least they would not be slaves to the Aristocracy.

Next thing you know, Britain will be attacked by Europe for trying to secede, their cities will be burnt, carpet baggers will arrive and strip Britons of all their wealth, and make it a hate crime to fly their flag.

Geography and history dictate that the Brits will go with Europe rather than the U.S. I mean, are they going to be the 51st state? Besides, in spite of the current love fest that we seem to be having with Tony Blair, he is still a far-left liberal and a globalist, or am I wrong?

A federal Europe is pretty much a done deal, AFAIK, and Britain either goes along or will be left out in the cold.

Like many in my family, I believe in a new "Anglosphere" (UK, USA, Australia, EnZed,, Ireland, and other English speaking nations). Canada would be welcomed so long as they expel Quebec to sink on its own.

Why is this such an impossible dream? It makes more sense than the UK giving up its identity to Brussels.

Next thing you know, Britain will be attacked by Europe for trying to secede, their cities will be burnt, carpet baggers will arrive and strip Britons of all their wealth, and make it a hate crime to fly their flag.

Who in Europe could take on the Brits? The ultra-wussy French? The pacifist Germans? They'll just decide to send inspectors to the UK. Britain can weather this for decades, while the Frogs and their sissy brethren sit back, eat cheese, drink wine, and sneer at them.

Like many in my family, I believe in a new "Anglosphere" (UK, USA, Australia, EnZed,, Ireland, and other English speaking nations). Canada would be welcomed so long as they expel Quebec to sink on its own.

Totally agree. Canada can take a hike unless the English speaking folks succeed and cut lose the French pukes that are running their country today.

Our constitution isn't perfect, and the issue of secession was settled after an ocean of blood was spilled, but at least on paper the states have final say on any changes to be made to the basic structures via the 3/4 requirement for amendment.

I remember explaining to Europeans I knew in Belgium back in the early 90's that for us the whole "subsidiarity" question was (again, on paper) very succinctly covered by the provision that any powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the States and people. The practice is quite different, of course, and that is the struggle conservatives here fight every day.

If Labour supports this "European constitution" wouldn't it likely provide the club the Conservatives need to beat them out of office? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd be very surprised if the majority of Britons would buy into giving up their sovereignty to a genuinely federal EU dominated by Germany, France, and Belgium. If they would, I'd agree that you should start planning a move across the pond.

Perhaps Bush should pick up Robert Conquest's idea of a loose association of English-speaking nations--one that derives its stature from the long history of shared language and culture.

First proposed by Benjamin Franklin in 1774 as a possible solution to the taxation/representation issue. The key difference is that Ben wanted the Parliament in London to function as the "Parliament of Empire" with MP's from Philadelphia, Boston and Bombay sitting next to the MP from Manchester.

I've always been fascinated by what would have happened had King George's ministers not been complete dolts.

"Brussels takes charge of virtually all areas of national life. Unless the EU chooses to waive its primacy, Westminster will be prohibited from legislating in public health, social policy, transport, justice, agriculture, energy, economic and social cohesion, the environment, internal and external trade, and consumer protection."

The difference is that, on Day One of the war, Britain could choose to lay waste to every major city in Europe...and still have enough firepower left to deal with the minor cities if it became necessary.

30
posted on 04/02/2003 3:43:33 PM PST
by Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)

Tarrant County, Texas welcomes you. We have jobs, space, low prices, cheap housing, cheap gas, no state income tax, and plenty of other Brits. We also have a professional football (soccer) team, with lots of good players (some ex-FA) for diversion. Please FreepMail if you're serious.

I don't agree that Britain and the Eastern European states need an "out".

There is a better response to this Franco-German attempt to take over Europe:

NO!

Britain (England) has survived almost a thousand years as a sovereign nation. If Article 9 is agreed to, it will no longer be sovereign. I do not understand why anyone believes Britain must join the EU on France's terms (let's be honest, THEY are the driving force here), or be "alone" and, somehow, weak. Rubbish! If that's true, why isn't Switzerland hopelessly bankrupt?

Everyone makes fun of Thatcher now, but in her latest book she argued that Britain could negotiate as least as good terms of trade with the EU as, say, Norway. It is entirely possible that Britain would get a better deal outside the EU than they do now.

My guess is that Blair is gambling that he will have more influence over Eastern Europe than the French and can win the internal EU power struggle. Bad idea. If he's wrong, and France has effective control, then you might as well fly the Tricolour from Buckingham Palace.

I understand Germany's guilt over WWII and their willingness to, in effect, pay reparations to France (via agricultural subsidies to French farmers), but why does Britain feel that same need? Why should Britain kowtow to France? Britain liberated parts of France in 1944 and was victorious over France in 1814-15. When was the last French victory over Britain on British soil? Umm ... That's right, there aren't any.

Britain is not, and never should be, part of the Continent. "The wogs begin at Calais". For centuries, Britain's first principle of foreign policy was to oppose any power that attempted to dominate the continent. The EU, through its French, German, and Belgian puppet masters, is that power.

France and Germany have sabotaged the Doha round through their odious deal to keep agricultural subsidies unchanged through 2013. They intend to destroy world trade liberation in order to protect the 3% of the French population who farm. The EU is not an engine for economic growth and political liberty, but an artificial mega-state that will stifle economic growth and restrict personal liberty. Why any free nation, especially those nations that have only recently become free from Soviet tyranny, would want to join this disaster with its godawful proposed constitution is beyond me.

What makes you think the Tident submarines would have British crews when such decision to secede would be made?

The draft constitution clearly mentions federal primacy in metters of foreign relations and defense. Surely one of the first actions of the new government will be to consolidate control of all nuclear weapons at the highest levels.

They would have a much better chance of seceding by asking the U.S. for assistance and some sort of alliance, maybe even statehood.

What makes you think the Tident submarines would have British crews when such decision to secede would be made?

Because the British will borrow a page from Andrew Jackson: "The EU has made a decision. Let them enforce that decision."

The draft constitution clearly mentions federal primacy in metters of foreign relations and defense. Surely one of the first actions of the new government will be to consolidate control of all nuclear weapons at the highest levels.

That's why this constitution will bomb.

36
posted on 04/02/2003 3:59:36 PM PST
by Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard deserves a medal for the Whitewater work he did when he was assigned to Washington DC. He was the best. Christoper Ruddy seems to have gone over to the nutsy side, but Ambrose marches on.

41
posted on 04/02/2003 4:08:46 PM PST
by gcruse
(If they truly are God's laws, he can enforce them himself.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.